Is DMD 0.166 RC 1.0?
Ivan Senji
ivan.senji_REMOVE_ at _THIS__gmail.com
Mon Sep 4 03:21:58 PDT 2006
xs0 wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> xs0 wrote:
>>> This is almost OT, but for several Java coders I know, not being able
>>> to type
>>>
>>> new int[3][4][5]
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> new int[][] {
>>> { bibi(), bubu() },
>>> { a+b, c+d }
>>> }
>>>
>>> made a _far_ worse first impression than the version number (as in,
>>> quote, "you're kidding, right?"). And it seems so simple to
>>> implement.. If you ask me, you really need to add those before going
>>> 1.0 (it's bad enough for Javans that Interface[] is not Object[] ;)
>>
>> My experiences with people who won't use D because it doesn't have
>> specific feature X is that they won't use it when feature X is
>> implemented, or when Y, Z, A, B and C are implemented. They're used to
>> the language they currently use, and will never change.
>>
>> We can easily get sucked into a rat race trying to please people who
>> haven't the slightest inclination to use D (or any language other than
>> the one they currently use).
>
> Well, I somewhat disagree. My company is more or less strictly Java, but
> when I made a internal presentation on D, a surprising number of people
> showed up and most of them seemed genuinely interested/fascinated. So, I
> don't think it's the case that they don't have the slightest inclination
> to use something else.
>
>> I'd much rather work on the features the people who have *already*
>> switched to D need to do outrageously cool things.
>
>> You mean Java doesn't have free functions? No out parameters? No
>> nested functions? No templates? No versioning? No operator
>> overloading? No lazy evaluation? No 80 bit floats? No stack
>> allocation? No structs? No array slicing? No direct access to C?
>> You're kidding, right? <g>
>
> I 100% agree Java is lacking in many ways (and to be fair, it has some
> advantages, too), but if you're aiming for a good first impression, you
> also need to care of the basic stuff. The two things I mentioned seem so
> basic for a language with dynamic arrays, that I totally fail to
> understand why you're so reluctant to implement them; considering the
> unofficial wish list, I'm not the only one. Would you care for any
> language that (regardless of other features) made you type "return a+b"
> like this:
>
> accumulator foo;
> foo.add(a);
> foo.add(b);
> return foo.result;
>
> Now, consider the remarkable similarity between that case and "auto foo
> = new int[3][4][5]" versus
Actually this works. But foo cannot be initialized with an initializer.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce
mailing list